>> [Snip]>>>>>>>> >> >> Consider the following statements:>>>> >> >> 1. Susan is an electrical engineer.>> >> >> 2. Susan is a mechanical engineer.>> >> >> 3. Susan is an electrical engineer or Susan is a mechanical >> >> >> engineer.>>>> >> >> Now, suppose you have a base relation P whose members map to>> >> >> individuals>> >> >> that exemplify the property of being an electrical engineer, a base>> >> >> relation>> >> >> Q whose members map to individuals that exemplify the property of>> >> >> being a>> >> >> mechanical engineer, and a virtual relation (a view) R (P UNION Q)>> >> >> whose>> >> >> members map to individuals that exemplify either the property of >> >> >> being>> >> >> an>> >> >> electrical engineer or the property of being a mechanical engineer >> >> >> or>> >> >> both.>> >> >> The presence of a tuple in the virtual relation with a value that >> >> >> maps>> >> >> to>> >> >> Susan tells us only that Susan exists and that she is either an>> >> >> electrical>> >> >> engineer or a mechanical engineer or both. It does not tell us >> >> >> which.>> >> >> It>> >> >> is only the fact that the value that maps to Susan appears also in>> >> >> both>> >> >> of>> >> >> the base relations that tells us that in fact Susan is both an>> >> >> electrical>> >> >> engineer and a mechanical engineer. So here we have three >> >> >> relations,>> >> >> two>> >> >> base, one derived, that draw their values from the same domain, but >> >> >> it>> >> >> is>> >> >> where a particular value appears that imparts different aspects of>> >> >> meaning>> >> >> to that value.>>>> >> > Values don't have meaning. That would indicate they somehow>> >> > "contained" that meaning. Meaning is conferred upon values by>> >> > isolation of the context in which they have been described (here the>> >> > relation they are contained in and its associated predicate), >> >> > followed>> >> > by interpretation of that description by a human (with their>> >> > subjective understanding of the world).>>>> >> I'm not sure I agree. Symbols don't have meaning apart from>> >> interpretation.>> >> Nor do combinations of symbols. Consider the combination MIX:>>>> >> Does it represent the act of combining things?>> >> Is it a representation of the number 1009?>> >> Is it the name of Donald Knuth's mythical computer?>>>> >> Only under an interpretation is an instance of that particular>> >> combination>> >> of symbols assigned meaning.>>>> > So without an interpretation the word has not been assigned a meaning?>> > Hence the word /alone/ is meaningless. That's exactly what I said. You>> > appear to have just checkmating yourself.>>>> A word without an interpretation is just sqiggles or noise. Only under >> an>> interpretation does it convey meaning. Also, a word is not a value. See>> below.>>>>>>>> >> And when a symbol or combination of symbols>> >> has been assigned meaning, the object in the universe that it maps to >> >> is>> >> the>> >> value it is associated with. A value, therefore, is in a very strict>> >> sense>> >> what a symbol means. So you're right in saying that it doesn't /have/>> >> meaning or /contain/ meaning: it is what is meant.>>>> >> > I recommend reading Wittgenstein's "Philosophical Investigations",>> >> > Dreyfus' "What Computers still can't do" and Clancey's "Situated>> >> > Cognition" for related analyses. Better to stand on the shoulders of>> >> > giants than the toes of midgets I say.>>>> >> Here's a quote from Wittgenstein's /Philosophical Investigations/. >> >> Page>> >> 2>> >> in fact:.>>>> >> These words [a quote from Augustine, /Confessions/], it seems to me, >> >> give>> >> us>> >> a particular picture of the essence of human language. It is this: >> >> the>> >> individual words in language name objects--sentences are combinations >> >> of>> >> such names.--in this picture of language we find the roots of the>> >> following>> >> idea: Every word has a meaning. This meaning is correlated with the>> >> word.>> >> It is the object for which the word stands.>> >> <<<>>>> >> Funny how the first recommended reading supports my position in just >> >> the>> >> first few pages.>>>> > That doesn't seem the case.>>>> >> To be sure, Wittgenstein argues that words have meaning, and they do,>>>> > No, he clarifies his everyday use of the term "have" by specifying>> > that he is positing that meaning is "correlated" to a word - that>> > meaning is conferred /upon/ words.>>>> That's not how I read it, but it's not worth fighting about.>>>> >> but not until it has been assigned under an interpretation.>>>> > Yes exactly as I said. Take the word, isolate the context in which it>> > has appeared, and then interpret it. Meaning is the end result. It is>> > not there at the start, and every stage of the process must occur for>> > it to come into being.>>>> Not exactly what you said: you were speaking of /values/ not words. >> There>> is a difference. A value is what a symbol or collection of symbols >> stands>> for. It is the object in the universe that under an interpretation the>> symbol maps to. It is what is meant.>>>> >> Nevertheless, the object that a symbol maps to is the value correlated>> >> with>> >> that symbol, and is per Wittgenstein, what is meant.>>>> > Your argument is tying itself in knots. If you are equating values =>> > real-world objects (which is a new one I have to say), then you are>> > forced to conclude that a database, not containing real-world objects,>> > therefore contains no values. This is of course madness.>>>> Not necessarily real-world objects, but those in the universe of>> discourse--whatever that happens to be.>>>> Isn't it true that the following all represent the same value: four, IV, >> 4?>> So here we have different symbols and combinations of symbols that map to>> the same object in the universe--the same value; so here we have >> different>> symbols and combinations of symbols that under an interpretation mean the>> same thing.>>>> It is not madness: A value is not a symbol. It is an output of the >> function>> that maps symbols and combinations of symbols to objects in the universe.>> A database contains symbols and combinations of symbols that only under >> an>> interpretation have values, but since there should always be an intended>> interpretation, a database should always contain symbols and combinations >> of>> symbols that have values. So it is imprecise, though understandable, to >> say>> that a database contains values.

>
> Well what can I say. I am genuinely suprised that you would follow
> your line of thought and end up denying the fact that "Databases
> contain values" (and hence propositions do too I guess), without
> wondering whether this contradiction with common-sense might throw one
> of your assumptions into doubt.
>
> I'd have thought that this is the opposite of what scientific method
> should be all about - start with a model, extend, find an empirical
> contradiction that falsifies it, go back and reassess.
>
>

I contend that there is a difference between a symbol that represents
something in the universe and a value. If that runs counter to your
particular brand of common-sense, then I sympathize but suggest you adopt
another.

>>>> It is important to keep separate symbol from value--representation from>> meaning--because what is represented in a database can mean different >> things>> at different times. A database is just a proposition, and under an>> interpretation that proposition is assigned a truth value, and as part of>> that assignment, every symbol and combination of symbols in that >> proposition>> is instantaneously correlated with an object in the universe and thus is>> assigned a value.>>>> [snip]